Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst
1
2
3
  1. #41
    what do you mean, nobody is arresting him or summarily executing him, people have the right to form wahtever opinion they want of you for whatever information they get from the newspaper or social media, if its not true then sue them instead of settling over and over again.

  2. #42
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Louisa Bannon View Post
    Civil cases have costs and many average persons cannot even contemplate such costs. Even penalties are possible, or having to pay the costs of one's opponents. All kinds of political nonsense happens in civil court.

    Again, you completely ignore costs. Let's say I make enemies with some editorial writer in the employ of the New York Times. They can trash me with impunity and I as a private citizen have no ability to retaliate in kind. They can write column after column utterly destroying my reputation with the public and I have nothing I could do in return as I am not a publisher nor a writer for an internationally known and distributed newspaper. Some fucking blog somewhere cannot compete with the likes of the New York Times.
    You can pretty readily sue them for libel, however. That's what the courts are for. If you're claiming that you've actually been damaged, then the costs are worth paying, because you'll win back far more than the case costs, even if you can't include your court costs in that judgement.

    If not, then I have to wonder how much damage was actually caused, in the first place.

    It's easy to say "more speech." It just doesn't actually mean anything...
    It means exactly as much as the speech you're protesting.

    And now we have idiocy like this:
    https://twitter.com/pacelattin/statu...50905087721473

    This shit is going to cause real fatigue over what should be a serious issue. A kind of equivalence between serious allegations and spurious ones is being created. What's the truth? What is a lie? Does it matter? What captures eyes?
    How is that "idiocy"? Tweeden behaved, herself, in the manner she's accusing Franken of, going by that and other images from the USO tours. It calls her accusations into question, since if that was the character of the tour, Franken's actions can't really be seen to be untoward. It is an equivalence, and it is not "spurious".

    More information is always better. We don't need to massage the facts to present the "truth" you'd prefer to hear. That's propaganda, not journalism.


  3. #43
    I agree.

    Trial by combat is where justice lies.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •